Intuitively, I thought that being on the opposite side would make the orbit stable.

60 degrees ahead or behind (Lagrange points L4 and L5) are potentially stable for co-orbiting bodies, so the orbiting bodies form an equilateral triangle with the dominant body. All of the giant planets have a collection of gravitationally dominated asteroids at theirs.

Quote:

I like how the spectral classifications (for the stars) had been made (O,B,A... with sub-classes) We should make similar universal scale for the planetary bodies.

Astronomers agree with you. Just like there are giant stars, mid size stars, and dwarf stars (plus brown dwarfs in between stars and planets), they categorize giant planets (subdivided into gas giants, ice giants, and hot giants), mid size terrestrial planets (sorted by geology), and ... wait for it ... dwarf planets !!!

Yes, I get that you mean a more rigorous classification system. We need a lot more data. Planets can have wildly differing materials, sizes, temperatures, stratification, spin, magnetism, etc. Whereas most stars follow a predictable pattern, because if they don't then then tend to stop being stars ... violently!

I like how the spectral classifications (for the stars) had been made (O,B,A... with sub-classes) We should make similar universal scale for the planetary bodies.

Astronomers agree with you. Just like there are giant stars, mid size stars, and dwarf stars (plus brown dwarfs in between stars and planets), they categorize giant planets (subdivided into gas giants, ice giants, and hot giants), mid size terrestrial planets (sorted by geology), and ... wait for it ... dwarf planets !!!

Except the IAU is very clear that dwarf planets aren't planets but rather some other thing.

And it ain't the astronomers who are doing the heavy lifting here. For the most part, it is the planetologists, who are describing how space junk grows through the "dwarf planet" phase and the changes that take place (e.g., becoming round, separating a core and mantle,outlasting an atmosphere) as they grow into larger planets (and stars, if they are very lucky).

Intuitively, I thought that being on the opposite side would make the orbit stable.

60 degrees ahead or behind (Lagrange points L4 and L5) are potentially stable for co-orbiting bodies, so the orbiting bodies form an equilateral triangle with the dominant body. All of the giant planets have a collection of gravitationally dominated asteroids at theirs.

Quote:

I like how the spectral classifications (for the stars) had been made (O,B,A... with sub-classes) We should make similar universal scale for the planetary bodies.

Astronomers agree with you. Just like there are giant stars, mid size stars, and dwarf stars (plus brown dwarfs in between stars and planets), they categorize giant planets (subdivided into gas giants, ice giants, and hot giants), mid size terrestrial planets (sorted by geology), and ... wait for it ... dwarf planets !!!

If the IAU didn't do their "Dwarf planets aren't planets and Pluto super-double isn't a planet" bullshit, it wouldn't be an issue.

Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/2258/Damn. I did look. Then while acquiring the url I got ninja'd. Granted, there was an update hiccup (as is common at login first thing in the morning). Still, sorry.